This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]On: 20 December 2014, At: 09:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Post-Compulsory EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20

Feedback: the student perspectiveJames Brown aa Napier University Business School , Edinburgh, UKPublished online: 12 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: James Brown (2007) Feedback: the student perspective, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12:1, 33-51, DOI: 10.1080/13596740601155363

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596740601155363

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research in Post-Compulsory EducationVol. 12, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 33–51

ISSN 1359-6748 (print)/ISSN 1747-5112 (online)/07/010033–19© 2007 Further Education Research AssociationDOI: 10.1080/13596740601155363

Feedback: the student perspectiveJames Brown*Napier University Business School, Edinburgh, UKTaylor and Francis LtdRPCE_A_215466.sgm10.1080/13596740601155363Research in Post-Compulsory Education1359-6748 (print)/1747-5112 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis121000000March 2007JamesBrownjw.brown@napier.ac.uk

The usefulness of the feedback received on assessments undertaken by accounting students duringtheir degree programme is an area about which little has been written. Given the increasing signif-icance of transparency in the academic process, as evidenced through the development of explicitprogramme and module learning outcomes, it seems anomalous that research into the studentperception of the benefit they receive from assessment feedback to help them achieve thoseoutcomes is virtually non-existent.

This study investigates student views on the usefulness of feedback through a semi-structuredinterview approach with 20 students across differing academic levels. The study principally findsthat: although students are generally content with the feedback they receive, they have concernsover the consistency between the comments and the mark; there is general discontent at the lack offeedback from examinations; there is evidence that the desire for feedback is, in part, a function ofstudent expectation of mark/grade.

Introduction

As a learning tool, feedback is recognised within almost every institution and enter-prise as vital to personal and overall development. Members of staff in most entitiesare appraised with feedback on performance: even Chief Executive Officers haveperformance appraised by shareholders, stakeholders or government. It could be said,then, that feedback as a concept is universal within the working environment and isnot specific to successful development in a purely academic environment. Notwith-standing that, feedback has been recognised by many commentators, not least Kolb(1982), as having an important part to play in the overall student learning experience.In the current academic climate, with a focus on reflective, independent learning, itcould be argued that the significance of feedback is increasing as a way of providingvital comment within which to allow the self-reflective process to be of genuine andtangible benefit to the student.

*School of Accounting & Economics, Napier University Business School, Craiglockhart Campus,Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH14 1DJ, UK. E-mail: jw.brown@napier.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

34 J. Brown

For feedback to be meaningful and useful, it should in some way help to fill the voidbetween what was desired and what was achieved. Ultimately, the students them-selves will define the usefulness—or otherwise—in this area, as it is their developmentwhich is being commented upon. The student perception on feedback, then, is aninteresting one, principally to know if they are finding feedback beneficial or not.However, relatively few commentators have conducted research in the area. Perhapsthis is understandable—students are unlikely to write books themselves on the expe-rience of feedback and it could also be asked, on a more fundamental level, if theyactually know what they want from feedback. After all, they are not asked to play apart in defining learning outcomes—their task is merely to achieve those outcomes.The unwritten law appears to be, therefore, that lecturers know the best way for themto achieve those outcomes, one of which is through offering feedback as part of theformative process. Such logic is understandable, but it does adopt a functionalistapproach to the whole process of student involvement—they will react somehow tofeedback, but it is not known how, and it is clear that they have their own feelingsabout how feedback can help them develop, but it is not known what they are or whatmight be done to help them help themselves.

The overall aim of this study, therefore, is to bring the student perception into focusand to consider feedback from the students’ perspective. The study will be guided byprevious research in that such research will form the basis of the questionnaire usedin semi-structured interviews: however, the intention of this study, given the under-researched nature of the field, is to allow relevant themes to emerge about studentfeelings on the feedback they receive and hence the study’s principle area of investi-gation is not in testing existing theory. The participants used in this study are allaccounting students, and it is to be hoped that particular areas relating to feedbackfor this subject discipline might emerge.

The rest of this study will be organised as follows—the Literature Review willreview the relevant literature of feedback to students, and the Research Approach willoutline the methodological approach of this study. The Results section details theemerging themes, based on 20 student interviews, and the Discussion section willdiscuss the conclusion from these results in the light of the contribution to the existingliterature. The final section will offer conclusions and recommendations and makesuggestions for future research in the area.

Literature review

MacDonald (1991) defines feedback as ‘the process of providing some commentaryon student work in which a teacher reacts to the ideas in print, assesses a student’sstrengths and weaknesses, and suggests directions for improvement’ (p. 3).Ramaprasad (1983), though considering feedback from a managerial rather than aneducational perspective, had previously argued that feedback can only be effectivewhen it is used to alter the gap between what is desired and what has been undertaken.

Commonality in definition of a term which crosses disciplines is convenient in thatit gives the impression of shared meaning and common understanding. There remain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 35

limitations, however. Feedback, for example, can happen in less formal situationsthan is suggested by the above definition—in verbal form through reaction to drafts,in answers to questions at the end/during a lecture and/or tutorial, and even by repe-tition of a point by the lecturer in reaction to a student’s puzzled look. The focus ofthis study, however, will be on the issue of feedback as written communication, assuch a definition is both recognised in the extant literature and, as cited above, has ashared understanding.

Feedback, as an area, is one that is benefiting from an increasing amount ofresearch. However, this is predominantly in the area of feedback from students, asopposed to feedback to students which is the focus of this study. King et al. (1999),for example, indicate that US research into feedback from students developed in the1970s and remains on-going: Silver (1992) provides evidence that the UK developedan interest in this area in the late 1980s when the perception arose, as a result ofgovernment policy, of students as consumers or clients. Their views on their experi-ence therefore became as integral to the success of a programme as did those of acustomer on the success of a purchased product.

Watson et al. (2003), through a review of the five accounting education journalsfrom 2000 to 2002, reveal that nothing has been written about feedback to studentsin this subject area. There is evidence of articles highlighting feedback from studentson several issues, especially in new ways of teaching complex accounting issues, butnothing on the specific issue of how students react to feedback themselves. In anidentical study relating to the years 1997–1999, Apostolou et al. (2001) found exactlythe same.

Commentators have recognised, however, the significance the role of feedback tostudents plays in the overall achievement both of their learning outcomes and of thepurpose of Higher Education overall and in general. It is not a recent development,in that Bruner (1970) argued that the development of knowledge depended uponreceiving information from previous endeavours which acted as the impetus forimprovement. Kolb (1982) also detailed the significance of reflection on feedback inhis cyclical model of the learning process. Ovando (1994) highlights how feedbackhas emerged to play a significant part in students’ learning performance as it causesthem to engage in a process of reflection and evaluation. Rust (2002) argues that suchdevelopment is part of a recent paradigm shift throughout the English-speakingacademic world from teaching to learning and that the student reflection on feedbackis an integral and vital part of that shift. Commentators such as Van Den Boom et al.(2004) and Thorpe (2000) offer confirmation of this, the former through the beliefthat ‘the quality of a student’s reflection is influenced by factors like external feed-back’ (p. 5) and the latter through the recognition that self-reflection is developedprimarily through feedback. It is for this reason also that Race (1995) laments theover-reliance within Higher Education on examinations—students almost neverreceive feedback on them and their opportunity for reflection is non-existent.

The student view appears to reflect the belief that receiving feedback is vital to theirdevelopment as independent learners. Taras (2003) records, in her study on whetherto feedback to students after they have self-assessed, that students were hungry for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

36 J. Brown

feedback and valued it as part of their development. Hyland (1998, 2003) found that,in her studies on student engagement with teacher feedback, students valuedfeedback as a basis for reflection. Thorpe (2000) reports on the feeling of deflationexperienced by students if they received no feedback on their work. It is similar to thefeeling of deflation reported by Ivanic et al. (2000) of students who received only agrade from their tutor, without comments or suggestions either on their work itself oron any attached sheet as to how they could improve—or, indeed, on what they haddone wrong.

Some commentators have alluded to the chasm that can exist between those givingand those receiving feedback. Thorpe (2000), for example, makes reference tosuggestive feedback, which includes comments such as ‘you are not reflectingproperly’ as very unhelpful to students. Paukert et al. (2002) highlight that studentsare often given comments such as ‘be more evaluative’ but not given any specificguidance as to how they might improve this skill. Hyland (2003) makes a similar pointin her study on feedback to students learning English as a second language—comments such as ‘focus on sentence structure here’ were found by students to beunhelpful and frustrating. All commentators highlight that the marker’s intention isto force the student to self-reflect and think again—they also highlight that thestudent experience is painful here because the feedback is not sufficiently structuredto allow them to reflect in the way the marker intends. Consequently, the feedback isnot ‘good’ because the student cannot use it to better themselves—they know they aredoing something wrong but do not know enough to improve it. In addition, they arein exactly the same position after the work as they were before it—or perhaps worse,as Mutch (2003) would argue, since their esteem has been damaged.

Mutch (2003) raises another point that exacerbates the situation detailed above asthe student can, at least, understand the marker’s comments in these examples. Hehighlights an example of feedback as ‘good use of basic sources’ and hypothesisesupon how the student should interpret this. Is it a compliment—after all, the word‘good’ is used? Or is it an implied criticism, in that the only sources referred to are‘basic’ and the expectation is that more sources should have been consulted?MacDonald (1991) reports that tutor feedback often lacks thought and depth, andFalchikov (1995) also raises the point that, as a result, students often do notunderstand the comments that have been made. Lea and Street (2000) argue thatacademics often write in formal language with a taxonomy which relates to theircommunity, and which students have genuine problems in understanding.

One can consider the effect this might have on the conscientious students who,rather than finding instructive use about how to better themselves, instead find them-selves in an almost existential situation where the relationship between the word andthe form it represents has diminished. It does not take too much imagination to guessat the effect this might have. All commentators who have done work with studentreaction to feedback (Hyland, 1998, 2003; Ivanic et al., 2000; Mutch, 2003; Taras,2003) highlight their loss of self esteem at feedback they cannot understand. Thefeeling of inferiority and insecurity is greatly increased—not only did they not performwell in the assessment itself, but they are now unable to even understand the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 37

feedback. Ivanic et al. (2000) in particular examine these feelings that the studentsencounter and find if students cannot understand the feedback received then theirreaction is a very personal one, in that this is not just a reflection of their work but ontheir inability as a human being. They also highlight that feedback is much more likelyto be negative and critical, than positive, in its tone and nature.

Young (2000), in her consideration of the difficulties adult learners experience inreacting to feedback, develops this further by suggesting that students’ reaction tofeedback is based almost exclusively on their personality type and not on their grade.Those with high self-esteem, for example, valued as much feedback as possible andsometimes demanded more if they felt their grade was not as expected. Those withlow self-esteem, however, felt that any mildly critical comment could be damagingand that the tutor comments were a reflection upon their worth as a human being.They did not react kindly to receiving positive comments initially, as they felt that italways preceded very deflating negative criticism.

Most of those commentators that have made suggestions about what constitutesgood feedback appear to have done so through considering the points students havemade and then drawing their own conclusions, as interpretivist researchers. Fewappear to have asked the students themselves, with the exception of Thorpe (2000)who lists points such as: individual and personal interest, approval and praise;suggestions as to how to tackle problematic areas and offers of individual help as theprincipal areas. The area of an individual response is also one highlighted by Hyland(1998, 2003).

Other commentators (e.g. Ovando, 1994; Rust, 2002) have been prescriptive inwhat they feel constitutes good feedback. These aspects include things such as: beingprompt, starting off with a positive comment, using informal language and offeringpersonal help. The issue of starting off with a positive comment is also noted byJacobs (1974) and Falchikov (1995) but, interestingly, is countered by some studentsin Hyland’s (1998) paper, who indicated that they felt the positive comments wereonly there as a sweetener which they ultimately felt patronised by.

Race (1995) agrees that feedback must be prompt and must cover all assessmentsundertaken by students, but develops the argument that feedback must be individualby stressing that ‘model solutions’ should be banned. Ivanic et al. (2000), havingstudied responses from tutors to student work, suggest similar points to Rust (2002)but recommend that tutors view feedback as the beginning of a dialogue processrather than as a process of correction which terminates with their comments. Theyargue that for the process to be genuinely reflective for the student, and by implicationfor the feedback to contribute towards the student achieving the learning outcomes,the student should engage with the comments and then offer a response. Theysuggest that this stage of feedback is most likely to be oral in nature.

There can therefore be no overall formula, and it is incumbent upon the lecturer/tutor to identify individual student needs from feedback. Laurillard (2002) agreeswith this latter aspect when she argues that for feedback to be relevant, it must relateto the student individually—that is, it must consider their personality but also theiraspirations and expectations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

38 J. Brown

Commentators such as MacDonald (1991) report that students often ignore feed-back. He indicates this may be a time issue, as the brain does not react well to receiv-ing feedback on something two weeks after it has been completed. Psychologically,the task has been completed and the students cannot remember the process of essayproduction well enough to be able to use the feedback. Hence, if feedback has beenreceived beyond the two-week window, students are more likely to ignore it.MacDonald (1991) reports that reactions can be based on grades—if the grade ispoor, students are much less likely to be interested in feedback, which he indicatescan be part of a ‘cycle of impoverishment’—a psychological process of avoidance anddisassociation where students shut the work and its feedback off as a bad experiencethat they do not wish to revisit. Perhaps significantly, he reports that poorer studentstend to discredit the feedback they receive and do not use it as a basis for self-improvement.

It would appear, therefore, that feedback in itself is a desirable thing and that it isof benefit to the student learning experience. The basic tenet of ‘feedback is good’,however, does not represent a conclusion. In fact, all it provides is a rationale forfurther study because it cannot be inferred that all feedback is good, or that all feed-back is equally good, or indeed that there is a shared understanding of the term ‘good’between those giving, and those receiving, the feedback. What those giving the feed-back believe their purpose to be, and how they achieve this in practice, is a fascinatingarea for investigation but unfortunately one that is too large for this study. Instead,the focus here is on the receiver of feedback, and their perceptions as to whether ithas aided their development. ‘Good’, therefore, is what exists in their mind.

Research approach

This study attempts to represent the reality of students on feedback from the views,feelings and beliefs they express. The semi-structured interview is the principal toolused to determine those beliefs, and the broad questions used as a basis to investigatethe area are detailed in Appendix 1. The study attempts to gain knowledge ofstudents’ perceptions on feedback and, through an interpretative process, to discoverthe emerging themes within those perceptions. As such, this study conforms to whatBurrell and Morgan (1979) term an interpretative sociological approach. Somecommentators, such as Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1992), argue that free-ing the mind of pre-conceptions in undertaking a study within this paradigm (forexample, by reading very little on the subject area) will allow for purer researchresults. However, others (such as Yin, 1994; Locke, 2001; Goulding, 2002) recognisethat some prior knowledge may be essential, and can lead to richer and moremeaningful data being amassed. This latter approach was felt to be more relevant tothis research: a knowledge of previous study provided a focus to the questions whichwould otherwise have been lacking, and a structure to the contribution of the researchto the extant literature in the field.

As indicated above, the device used to gain knowledge on students’ perception wasthe semi-structured interview. Commentators such as Bryman (1995) have noted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 39

that such an approach allows not only the fundamental research questions to beaddressed but also other factors that may be significant to the area to emerge. Of vitalsignificance for the overall research approach, however, the study itself is not limitedto merely considering student perceptions on emergent themes in previous researchbut in building and developing themes from their perceptions of their reality.

The approach is therefore both qualitative and interpretivist. Strauss and Corbin(1993) suggest that qualitative research can permit greater knowledge to be gained onthings about which only a little is known and Bryman (1995) indicates that such anapproach is conducive to the nature of inquiry in a social science when the goal isinvestigation of an under-researched area. This subject area is clearly one which isunder-developed and it is to be hoped that the exploratory nature of this approachmay open up the field for other research of both a qualitative and a quantitative nature.

For this study, interviews were conducted with a total of 20 students from NapierUniversity, Edinburgh, Scotland at different levels: five each at first year, fourth yearand post-graduate, and five with students in Hong Kong in their fourth year. Thestudents were chosen from three different years to try to ascertain if feelings andperceptions on feedback were distinctive and varied at different levels. Students fromHong Kong were included in the study to try to ascertain if there were any significantdifferences in emerging themes from home-based students and Hong Kong-basedones. It is recognised that the sample sizes here are small, and cannot be consideredto be entirely representative of the whole: however, as indicated previously, this is anexploratory qualitative study and the sample sizes are sufficient to allow broadconclusions to be drawn with regard to emerging themes. Quantitative researchersmay then investigate such themes and factors from a more functionalist perspective.

Students were chosen using systematic sampling from tutorial lists. If the tutorialsize were 25, the selection basis would be every fifth student—if it were 15, theselection basis would be every third. Selection was made on the basis of tutorial asopposed to year classes as it is intuitively assumed that students (especially under-graduates) would feel slightly more relaxed, and would be more likely to engage in anopen and frank exchange of views, with someone that they had previous interactionwith.

Each interview was tape-recorded and then transcribed. The data were then anal-ysed according to emerging themes. The coding process arose after reading and re-reading the transcript interviews and the system used to identify themes was astraightforward shorthand mnemonic based on emerging information—‘IDL’, forexample, denoted the theme of what students would ideally like to see in feedback.Common themes between the levels were then identified and the conclusionspresented. Student participants were each given an identification code, detailed inAppendix 2.

Results

Students’ views in this section are presented according to the emerging themes. Thesethemes arose initially through questioning on their satisfaction with the status quo of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

40 J. Brown

the feedback they receive. Some aspects here—such as feedback being received withintwo weeks of hand-in—were considered to be satisfactory. Additionally, thedepartmental policy of using a similar type of sheet as a basis for feedback across allmodules was condoned.

This sheet (see Appendix 3 for an example) encourages a broad sense of consis-tency in its attempts to portray an overall perspective with supporting comments. Itspurpose is twofold, with the top half giving a grade and the bottom half offering justi-fication for that grade. This reflects the purpose of feedback itself—what score wasachieved, and how it could be improved. The majority of students are comfortablewith the use of this sheet, especially as an introduction to the feedback they received.The comment below is typical of most respondents’ views:

it’s immediate, and gives you a very quick overall view of how you performed. It’s impor-tant to get that from a piece of feedback … that’s the way you look at things, you want themark and an overall sense of your performance right away (ID 1:2)

However, the lecturer/tutor comments are generally less well received, as students feelthat sometimes the comments themselves are insufficient, lacking a personal perspec-tive or too vague to be helpful.

I thought that maybe lecturers don’t have enough time … just a few boxes ticked and noth-ing else, without comments. It’s not really acceptable. (ID 7:2)

We got 50%, we didn’t get told what we’d done wrong nor what we could have donebetter. I think now, looking back, that was appalling. (ID 7:4)

On feedback, the lecturer needs to tell me what he wants. Hong Kong students … we areused to memorising answers, we don’t question anything. Good feedback tells us what todo—it tell us, clearly, no, this is not what you do. He doesn’t just give us 45% and say ‘it’sok’. (ID 4H:3)

I don’t like these shorthand comments, and we get too many of them—’good analysis’—what does that mean? Where? And words like ‘weak’, ‘good’ and ‘strong’—I mean, is thewhole thing weak … and blank, pointless comments like ‘wrong’ or ‘irrelevant’ or randomquestion marks, what use is that to anybody? (ID 1:4)

Occasionally you get ‘be more evaluative’ and I think—I don’t know what you mean withthat comment because I think I have been very evaluative. (ID 4:1)

What is evident from the above comments, which were representative of themajority of responses from differing years, is an overall sense of frustration that, forwhatever reason, they have not been able to utilise the feedback as an area for furtherdevelopment. In each case the student has been left with the feeling that they havemade no more progression toward being able to address the assignment’s demandsthan they had done before they started. The student perception, therefore, is that thetop half is satisfactory but the bottom half clearly lacking, for several reasons, theinsight and clarity that is necessary for summative assessment. It would also be trueto say that this lack of clarity is causing confusion with regard to the academicintegrity of the feedback itself.

This leads to the question of whether students seek further clarification throughdialogue with the lecturer/tutor. This would require students to take a pro-active view

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 41

with regard to the issue of feedback (which, it is recognised, is offered rather thansought) and, generally, they were reluctant to do this. A few students indicated thatthey had approached lecturers on occasion and were dealt with well, but the followingview was much more typical of the interviewees:

it is not encouraged … I don’t think they (students) would feel brave enough to do it … itmaybe depends on the lecturer a bit … some people are more approachable than others.Some you know, you can just tell, don’t want to be approached. (ID 7:1)

Students also raised the issue of variety in feedback comments they could expect toreceive, both across modules and within a module itself but across different students.Whereas they generally welcomed the diversity in feedback comment from differentlecturers/tutors, this was coupled with a desire to see consistency with regard to theaspects addressed in feedback:

if you took a bundle of ticked grids, and a bundle of comments, there’s no way you’d beable to match the one with the other. And if you put marks into that too … there would beno correlation. (ID 7:5)

we probably have a right to expect a certain amount of feedback. I mean, two lines isn’tenough and I’ve had that before. But it is up to the individual lecturer and it would be hardto make guidelines (ID 4:5)

The aspect of consistency was recognised by both students from Hong Kong and bystudents in their first year but was not viewed by them in a pejorative sense. The viewsexpressed above, however, are representative of the students in their fourth year in theUK, and of those at post-graduate level. The two aspects of consistency beingreferred to are quite significantly different: the latter (ID 4:5) refers to a consistencyin feedback across all modules, which would be difficult to achieve in terms of theinstruction and control necessary across a wide range of lecturers. The former (ID7:5), however, should be less likely to occur. It is highlighted above that the feedbackform, whilst undertaking two tasks, should demonstrate a clear relationship betweenthe areas of the mark awarded and the justification for it. That is to say, there shouldbe no inconsistency within the mark and the comments, as the latter provides boththe rationale and reasoning for the former and an evaluation of what was missing fromthe answer. In theory at least, the opportunity for the diversity pinpointed by theinterviewees should be limited.

Although certain areas, as mentioned above, were commented upon as havingpotential for improvement, nowhere was this more obvious nor unequivocal as in thearea on feedback from examinations. At present, no official feedback on examinationsis offered to students except the mark. Virtually all students highlighted this as some-thing they would like to see feedback from, for reasons varying from interest due toeffort expended to viewing such feedback as a vital part of formative learning processof their degree.

well, you want to know what you did wrong, what you did right and where you couldimprove … the bare minimum that should be done is your exam handed back to you witha sheet like you get on the coursework. (ID 1:1)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

42 J. Brown

it’s important for improvement, because I use what the lecturer tells me in one module foranother one. I think this would be better with exams, at least some guidelines to give mean idea. (ID 4H:2)

you develop tools from module to module, in particular the way you analyse and the wayyou form an argument—there is a lot that is common to every module. Also, exams them-selves … there’s probably a technique about doing them that we don’t learn until it’s toolate. (ID 7:3)

Several students raised the point that the emphasis placed upon the examinationby the University was strong, and that it therefore seemed incongruous to leave thestudent with little feedback from it beyond the mark. If it had such a level of signifi-cance, in terms of the achievement of the learning outcomes, that significance shouldbe reflected in terms of the feedback received. It is possible there is a disparitybetween lecturer and student here, however, of what the module represents. To themodule leader, the examination is a genuinely summative piece of assessment, forwhich feedback cannot aid the student in further study on the module as the moduleis now finished. The student perspective, however, as indicated above, is fundamen-tally different. The module may contain information on a specific subject area, whichdiffers from module to module, but the learning experience stretches across modules.An ability to form an argument, rationalise and evaluate are the skills being soughtthroughout their university career, and the extent to which students are expected todemonstrate those abilities is specific (if to anything) to level, not module. It is naturalfor them to therefore develop these skills in one module and use them in another, withthe entire learning process becoming a form of formative assessment. Denyingfeedback from examinations, when viewed from the student perspective, becomesdifficult to justify in terms of the benefit to their academic development—indeed, itarguably hampers this development significantly and one of the main foci of theirtime, effort and energy (the examination) remains something from which they learnvery little. One student commented:

If I could have the chance to speak to an examiner that would be ideal … to see what I’dwritten and then be able to ask someone about it, I mean we’re here to ask questions, aren’twe? I sometimes feel it’s like a link that’s missing in feedback, and, yes, I think I wouldprobably have done better in subsequent exams had that link been there. (ID 4:3)

With regard to the area of feedback in general, students at all levels indicated thatthe amount of feedback they want to receive from a piece of work is often a functionof how well they think they have performed themselves. Figures 1 and 2 represent thisby level.Figure 1. If mark < than expectedFigure 2. If mark > than expectedFigure 1 represents the number of students, by level, whose demand for feedbackgrew if they had scored less than they expected. Figure 2 represents the number ofstudents, by level, whose demand for feedback grew if they had scored more thanexpected. Virtually all students indicated that their desire for feedback was greaterwhen they were awarded a mark that was lower than their expectation, and whereasstudents generally still wanted feedback when their performance bettered theirexpectation, the desire for it was not as strong.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 43

Many students also indicated, to an extent, that the feedback they were looking forwas a function of their level of study. All students from the fourth year in the UK,for example, found that their desire for feedback had increased, although the reasonsfor this were different in virtually every case—one indicated that it was due to the factit was the fourth year and somehow ‘different’, one because they were likely to use itmore now than before, and one because:

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Yr 1 Yr 4UK

Yr 4HK

PG

Level

No

. of

stu

den

ts

Want

Don’t want

Figure 1. If mark < than expected

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Yr 1 Yr 4UK

Yr 4HK

PG

Level

No

. of

stu

den

ts

Want

Don’t want

Figure 2. If mark > than expected

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

44 J. Brown

well, I put more into it at this level, I try harder … I have to … it’s selfish I know but Iprobably expect more feedback because of that. (ID 4:2)

Students at postgraduate level considered themselves quite demanding with regardto the amount of feedback they wanted and indicated that their desire for feedbackhas not changed as they have progressed. The consensus, however, was that the feed-back they sought at postgraduate level was more than they looked for when under-graduates.

Emerging themes

In summary, it would appear that certain themes have emerged from the study whichcan be detailed as follows.

1. Students are unhappy at the lack of clear relationship between the ticks allocatedon the marking grid, the mark awarded, and the comments made. This dissatis-faction can be due to comments not being fully explained, ticks in the specificboxes and marks seeming incongruous and an apparent lack of consistency acrossdifferent students in the same module.

2. Students are unhappy at the lack of feedback from examinations, which they viewas a vital component in their overall learning process.

3. There is some tentative evidence to suggest that feedback can be a function ofboth expectation and level.

Discussion

This section considers some of the implications of the themes raised by this study inthe light of both points raised by previous commentators in this area and in terms ofthe contribution made to the area of accounting education specifically.

This study finds that the students questioned do not hold a similar definition offeedback to commentators such as MacDonald (1981) and Ramaprasad (1983).Both these commentators had a broad view of feedback as being something used tobridge a gap between what is desired and what has been achieved. It is clear thatstudents feel feedback relates only to one form of assessment, not end tests (exami-nations), and therefore the gap is not being adequately bridged. Thorpe (2000) hasargued that the quality of a student’s reflection is influenced heavily by the feedbackthey receive and the students’ views would appear to agree with this, in that they feelthey are lacking a major source of reflection to help improvement. This may causeRace’s (1995) lamentation of exams to be tempered slightly, in that it is not the examper se, as a mode of assessment, that is causing students a problem, but more so thelack of feedback from it which inhibits their development.

Race (1995) was critical of providing model answers to students and this researchwould appear to uphold that view—students like feedback to be individual, relevantand detailed in the specific points it makes. The views of students that partook in thisresearch also seems to uphold the views expressed by Ivanic et al. (2000) that students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 45

would like to view feedback as the start of a process rather than the end of it. Theywould like to engage in dialogue based on feedback to deepen their understanding ofthe points being made and to help their process of reflection. That this does nothappen is down to perceptions held by students that lecturers appear to be doing littleto change—that feedback is the end of the process and that the student’s task is toassimilate the comments made on their own.

Although this study was conducted with the help and support of accountingstudents, its focus on feedback was broad and exploratory and it would appear thatthere is little that has arisen that is relevant, specifically for the teaching and feedbackof accounting as a subject discipline, rather than for feedback generically. However,within some of the observations and themes lie aspects which would benefit fromfurther investigation and research to determine if there is anything which has anaccounting-specific interest. If we consider, for example, the theme of feedback as afunction of expectation and level, and we allow that accounting is a cumulative disci-pline, where skills and knowledge amassed in one module may become pre-requisitesfor another, we can see that it is likely that performance will decline in line withprogression. It could be perceived that such performance will raise the demand forfeedback and that it is inherent to the nature of accounting that students will demandmore feedback from it the more they progress. Such ideas, whilst unsubstantiated bythis research, would be worthy of further investigation in a study with a more specificfocus.

This study also finds an almost exact agreement from participants withMcDonald’s (1991) view of two weeks being the maximum amount of time thatstudents are prepared to wait before receiving feedback. This was adapted slightly byHong Kong students being prepared to wait four weeks (given evident barriers ofdistance). It does appear, however, that there is a psychological period of time beyondwhich feedback begins to lose its effect, and that students appear very clear as to whatthis period of time is.

A major aspect in the literature which did not arise from this study, however, wasthat of personal esteem playing a part in student reaction to feedback. Students at alllevels expressed the view that feedback was, above all, a learning opportunity andnone indicated that they had felt depressed, upset, or suffered from a lack of self-esteem in reaction to reading a lecturer’s feedback comments.

Conclusions and recommendations

Given the emphasis students have placed on the personal nature of feedback, and onthe fact that they can view it as a function of their expectation, a recommendation ofthis study is to make feedback more personally relevant to students by asking them topre-mark their own work and offer a very brief explanation as to why they believe theyshould be awarded this mark. This is not intended to move this research to a discus-sion of self-assessment—it is a different area and deserving of a separate researchinvestigation. In this case, the student’s expected mark is being used as a guide for themarker to offer feedback around. The marker can determine quickly where the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

46 J. Brown

student is (is not) achieving more than expected and will have a strong idea of whythe student feels this way. The feedback can then be individual, relevant, and specif-ically directed to relevant area(s). There will, of course, be aspects the student has notconsidered and the recommendation is not that such areas be ignored in feedback,only that the expected mark and reason for it give the feedback a focus, structure andclarity which has previously been lacking.

Another recommendation from this research would be to develop a system wherebystudents can receive feedback on their examination performance. This would beconsistent with the fact that universities offer programmes, not a series of one-offmodules. Students develop themselves and their abilities over a programme, andtherefore over a series of perhaps 32 modules. Each module within that programmetherefore becomes part of that learning process, and the feedback received from eacha vital part of that development. By refusing to give feedback on examinations, a vitalpart of the learning process is taken away from the student. Indeed, it would be muchmore consistent to argue that a student received no feedback from any type ofassessment (coursework, etc. and examinations) than it is to argue for the status quoof feedback from only one form of assessment. The exact form this feedback wouldtake will clearly be controversial and could relate to offering students a copy of theirannotated examination scripts to keep or in offering them the opportunity to spend10 to 15 minutes with a lecturer going through their paper. The latter may be moreworkable initially, by offering students the opportunity, but not the obligation, toundertake this and by using a group of lecturers sympathetic to this idea.

In an exploratory study of this nature there will always be limitations. In this study,only 20 students were interviewed and it could not be inferred that such a figure is inany way representative of a university’s student population. It is also recognised thatstudents from years two and three were not interviewed at all and that conclusionswith regard to students from different levels having the same beliefs are tempered bythis. The ability level of the students interviewed in this study may also have had aneffect upon the results—the grades they achieve, and their development throughoutuniversity, may significantly affect their feelings and beliefs and this study made noattempt to provide for this. As with all interview-based research, the credibility of theresults is dependent upon the honesty of the participants, though it is to be hoped thata sample of 20 students has reduced the possibility of this occurring.

Several possible areas for further study arose from this study. It would be interest-ing to discover, for example, whether larger groups replicated the results that havearisen from this study and, indeed, how students from years two and three would haveanswered. A longitudinal study, which tracked student views on feedback across theduration of their university career, would also be interesting. Another interesting areawhich arose was the general ability levels of the students participating in the study,and if their views on feedback were at all a function of their ability level. Werestudents who happened to score higher marks more or less likely to want feedbackthan those who scored lower marks, for example? It would also be interesting andbeneficial to have a much more thorough investigation of the demands of the overseaslearner, as the five Hong Kong students interviewed here cannot be considered to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 47

representative of all Hong Kong students, let alone all Chinese students and certainlynot of all overseas students. It would also be very interesting to take a case studyapproach to research in this area, which would include interviews with tutors, lectur-ers and programme leaders. Such an investigation would be a fertile area for furtherresearch, as it would be hoped that a practical way forward might emerge as a consen-sus from the differing viewpoints. Having a more accounting-focused study wouldalso benefit development with regard to the specific needs of accounting studentsfrom feedback, should they exist. This study has highlighted that there is a gapbetween student wants and what they currently receive, and a more-focused study,which considers the specific idiosyncrasies of the accounting field, is required toascertain if there are specific student needs which are not being met.

The desire among students, at different levels, for feedback is strong. It is clear that,whilst they are relatively satisfied with the feedback they are currently receiving, thereis a demand for that feedback to be more detailed and to include feedback on exam-inations. Such a practice, however, would prove time-consuming for most lecturerswho are already challenged by the demands of research, consultancy and administra-tion. It will be interesting to see how these conflicting demands develop over the nextfew years.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the participants of the British Accounting Association(Scotland) 2004 Conference, and to acknowledge the insightful help and commen-tary of Robin Roslender, Karen Thomson, Fred Percival and Brian Windram.

References

Apostolou, B.A., Watson, S.F., Hassell, J.M. & Webber, S.A. (2001) Accounting education litera-ture review (1997–1999), Journal of Accounting Education, 19, 1–61.

Bruner, J.S. (1970) Some theorems on instruction, in: E. Stones (Ed.) Readings in educationalpsychology, 1st edn (London, Methuen), 112–125.

Bryman A. (1995), Quantity and quality in social research, 4th edn (London, Routledge, London).Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis, 1st edn

(London, Heinemann).Falchikov, N. (1995) Improving feedback to and from students, in: P. Knight (Ed.) Assessment for

learning in higher education, 1st edn (London, Kogan Page).Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of grounded theory analysis, 1st edn (Mill Valley, CA, Sociology Press).Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, 1st

edn (Aldine de Gruyter, New York).Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded theory—a practical guide, 1st edn (London, Sage Publications).Hyland, F. (1998) The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers, Journal of Second

Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286.Hyland, F. (2003) Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback, System, 31(1),

217–230.Ivanic, R., Clark, R. & Rimmershaw, R. (2000) What am I supposed to make of this? The

messages conveyed to students by tutors’ written comments, in: M.R. Lea & B. Stierer (Eds)Student writing in higher education (Suffolk, Open University Press), 47–67.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

48 J. Brown

Jacobs, A. (1974) The use of feedback in groups, in: A. Jacobs & W. Spradlin (Eds) The group asagent of change, 1st edn (New York, Behavioural Publications), 408–449.

King, M., Morison, I., Reed, G. & Grazyna, S. (1999) Student feedback systems in the businessschool, Quality Assurance in Education, 7(2), 90–100.

Kolb, D.A. (1982) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development, 1st edn(New Jersey, Prentice Hall).

Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching, 1st edn (London, Routledge/Falmer).Lea, M.R. & Street, B.V. (2000) Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: an

academic literacies approach, in: M.R. Lea & B. Stierer (Eds) Student writing in highereducation (Suffolk, Open University Press), 32–47.

Locke, K. (2001) Grounded theory in management research, 1st edn (London, Sage Publications).MacDonald, R.B. (1991) Developmental students processing of teacher feedback in composition

instruction, Review of Research in Developmental Education, 8(5), 3–7.Mutch, A. (2003) Exploring the practice of feedback to students, Active Learning in Higher Educa-

tion, 4(1), 24–38.Ovando, M.N. (1994) Constructive feedback: a key to successful teaching and learning, Interna-

tional Journal of Educational Management, 8(6), 19–22.Paukert, J.L., Richards, M.L. & Olney, C. (2002) The American Journal of Surgery, 183, 300–304.Race, P. (1995) What has assessment done for us—and to us? In: P. Knight (Ed.) Assessment for

learning in higher education, 1st edn (London, Kogan Page).Ramaprasad, A. (1983) On the definition of feedback, Behavioural Science, 28, 4–13.Rust, C. (2002) The impact of assessment on student learning, Active Learning in Higher

Education, 3(2), 145–158.Silver, H. (1992) Student feedback—issues and experience, CNAA Project Report 39, November.Strauss, A. & Corbin, G. (1993) Basics of qualitative research—grounded theory procedures and

techniques, 1st edition (London, Sage Publications, London).Taras, M. (2003) To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment, Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 549–565.Thorpe, M. (2000) Encouraging students to reflect as part of the assignment process, Active

Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 79–92.Van Den Boom, G., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. & Van Gog, T. (2004) Reflection prompts

and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: effects on students’ self-regulatedlearning competence, Computers in Human Behaviour, 20, 551–567.

Watson, S.F., Apostolou, B., Hassell, J.M. & Webber, S.A. (2003) Accounting educationliterature review (2000–2002), Journal of Accounting Education, 24(4), 267–325.

Yin, R.K. (1994) Case study research—design and methods, 1st edn (California, Sage Publications).Young, P. (2000) ‘I might as well give up’—self-esteem and mature students’ feelings about

feedback on assessments, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(3), 409–418.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 49

APPENDIX 1. POTENTIAL QUESTIONS

Do you believe you receive the proper amount of feedback for your learning needs—on exams and coursework?

How long after you have submitted/undertaken an assessment do you want feedbackon it? Does that happen?

(Not level 1) Has your perspective on the amount of feedback you feel you requirechanged as you have developed through your university career? Why, if so, do youthink that is the case?

What type of things do you like to see in feedback?

What sort of things give you a negative feeling in the feedback you receive?

Do you think you understand the feedback that you receive, and are you confidentthat you can use the feedback received as a basis for reflection and self-improvement?

Have you ever asked for further clarification of some/any points, based on the feed-back you have received? What was the result?

Do you ever discuss the feedback you have received with your classmates? What sortof aspects are normally highlighted?

What, in your opinion, constitutes good feedback?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

50 J. Brown

APPENDIX 2. STUDENT IDENTIFICATION CODES: NAPIER UNIVERSITY, EDINBURGH

YEAR 1

ID 1:1 Student 1 (male)ID 1:2 Student 2 (female)ID 1:3 Student 3 (female)ID 1:4 Student 4 (male)ID 1:5 Student 5 (female)

YEAR 4 UK

ID 4:1 Student 1 (female)ID 4:2 Student 2 (female)ID 4:3 Student 3 (male)ID 4:4 Student 4 (male)ID 4:5 Student 5 (female)

YEAR 4 HONG KONG

ID 4H:1 Student 1 (female)ID 4H:2 Student 2 (female)ID 4H:3 Student 3 (female)ID 4H:4 Student 4 (male)ID 4H:5 Student 5 (male)

POSTGRADUATE

ID 7:1 Student 1 (female)ID 7:2 Student 2 (female)ID 7:3 Student 3 (male)ID 7:4 Student 4 (male)ID 7:5 Student 5 (male)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Feedback 51

APPENDIX 3. ANY MODULE

XXXXXX

Coursework Assessment Feedback

Student: Date submitted

Matriculation No: Date marked

Category Fail Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent Comments

Presentation 10%

Academic Grounding 35%

Justification 10%

External Analysis 40%

Conclusion 5%

TOTAL 100%

General Comments on Submission:

Overall Mark % Marked by:

Double marked:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

39 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014